Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
Provisional categories Organizations I propose the creation of a supercategory "Organizations" -- this would basically be any group, including governments, corporations, militaries, teams, etc. Form *Supercategory: Category:Organizations -- this category contains all organizations articles in a list **Subcategories can be added at will from the following: ***Category:Governments ***Category:Corporations ***Category:Agencies -- covering both militaries, and governmental sub-agencies ****Category:Military units -- proposed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions ***additional categories for other groups as they become identified -- i'm not sure if we have enough articles relevant for a Category:Music groups or Category:Sports teams, *** Category:Religions might be a possibility The question about this suggestion is -- should all these articles still be contained in the master category, or should we leave the supercategory containing only articles about "miscellaneous groups" that don't fall into any of the subcategories -- or would it even be preferable to create additional subcategory Category:Miscellaneous groups. Additionally, subcategories of major groups can and will be created upon suggestion and vote here -- once Category:Agencies has been approved, Category:Starfleet, Category:Tal Shiar, etcetera can be contained in it. :I don't recommend putting any articles in Category:Starfleet or any other organization at this level, however, because an additional tree structure must be discussed -- to prevent double listing articles that fall under both '''UFP' and Starfleet.'' There are a lot of organizations that may be deserving of a category heading -- this level will form a major portion of our tree structure if it is approved. Once approved, it will be easy to create multiple categories by writing one sample category makeup -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) :(I'm not sure where this came from, but it didn't belong with the paragraph prevously attached with it, so I am putting it here.) --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Subcategories based on military or service organizations, agencies, (Category:Organizations; Category:Agencies; etc), will use the form "NAME personnel". Former members who move on to other exploits may be double categorized. Members of sub-agencies or units that are able to be listed like that should also be categorized like that. -- for example, Spock is both in Starfleet personnel, and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. *Subcategories based on species should take the form of their list article (people) -- the species name in plural (Category:Vulcans, humans, etc). Hybrids should be double categorized. *Subcategories based on Category:Governments or Category:Regions could take the form NAME citizens or NAME residents, i'm open for suggestions on this one if anyone has a better idea for final terminology. Earth Category:Earth. with list subcategory Category:Earth cities. The cities category would cover the numerous Earth cities mentioned, and the broader Earth category would cover other aspects of the planet -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT) * would additional subcategory Category:Earth regions be prefereable for all of our nation, state and continent/island articles? * further subcategories could be applied for Category:Earth lifeforms. * would this be an opening for our first Category:People species category - a Category:Humans listing? :Does anyone have any further input whether or not i should create these categories? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:19, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT) * Perhaps just a category of cities, to encompass both earth and alien cities, much like Category:Starships encompasses all starships Starfleet, and alien. Additionally, a category of regions to cover all states, counties, provinces, nations, regions, islands, etc. and -- a category of landforms for all mountains, continents, and the such...and if possible think of a broader term to include rivers lakes and oceans. --Alan del Beccio 06:26, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) Earth sub-categories Earth transportation *What about Category:Earth transportation for roads, subways, etc.? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:09, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I think we might need a Category:Transportation first, followed by some definitions. --Alan del Beccio 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Earth Regions * We needs to do something about all the states, provinces, etc, listed on Earth regions. Making Category:Earth regions would seem best, except that in accordance to how we have created other earth subcategories this name does not fit with the ^Category:Regions. I created the list titled Subnational_entities, which it the proper name in this case, it seems to me we might start with Category:Subnational entities and sub it with Category:Earth subnational entities. --Alan del Beccio 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Sub-categories for Category:Materials Explosives * Quite a few a listed in "Night Terrors", and elsewhere. A list of course would need to be compiled at some point, first. --Alan del Beccio 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) :* I support this, but we need to figure out what we're gonna do about seperating the materials category from the chemical compounds category and all that jazz before we create this. (i.e. what articles should be in the materials cat, which ones in the chemical compounds, should they be seperate cats rather than one being the sub of the other, etc. Fun times). --From Andoria with Love 08:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Specific Military Personnel Similar to the various personnel categories, I'd like to offer these suggestions: * Category:Bajoran Militia personnel, based off of the page Bajoran Militia personnel, subcategory of Category:Bajorans (and I guess Category:Ferengi). * Category:Klingon military personnel, based off of the page Klingon Defense Force personnel, subcategory of Category:Klingons. * Category:Romulan military personnel, would be based off of a Romulan military personnel page, subcategory of Category:Romulans. * Category:Cardassian military personnel, would be based off of a Central Command personnel page, subcategory of Category:Cardassians. * Category:Ferengi military personnel, would be based off of a Ferengi military personnel page, subcategory of Category:Ferengi. * Category:Vulcan High Command personnel/Category:Vulcan military personnel, would be based off of a page listing Vulcan military personnel, subcategory of Category:Vulcans. * Category:MACO personnel, based off of the page MACO personnel. * Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel, based off of the page USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel, subcategory of Category:Starfleet personnel. It should be included for militaries with at least 10 personnel, and probably a good number of separate civilians to make weeding out different from duplication.--Tim Thomason 01:50, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (updated Tim Thomason 12:48, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)) * Support current/major races. --Alan del Beccio 04:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I agree and support the ones Gvsualan mentioned above (though I personally think a simpler and more generic Category:Cardassian military personnel sounds more appropriate). I also strongly support Category:Bajoran Militia personnel andCategory:Romulan military personnel. I'll offer mild support for the Category:Ferengi military personnel, Category:Vulcan High Command personnel/Category:Vulcan military personnel, and Category:MACO personnel. I'll have to see how many Enterprise-A personnel were actually mentioned before I take a side on Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel. :I think I might have to oppose Category:Val Jean personnel since it's a bit redundant with both the Voyager and Maquis personnel categories and also Category:USS Equinox personnel since I don't really think there's people enough to warrant one. I also oppose Category:Starfleet Command personnel (a bit too vague, I think). I also oppose Category:Starfleet Academy personnel because either this only includes instructors, teachers, etc., in which case there's probably too few, or it also includes cadets, in which case EVERY OFFCER, presumably having once been a cadet, should theoretically be included, making it far too broad.--T smitts 22:56, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) :: Actually when I made this list of personnel pages, I searched through all the pages with "personnel" and only included those with over 10 members. I understand the redundancy of Category:Val Jean personnel and the vagueness of Category:Starfleet Command personnel. Starfleet Academy personnel would be based on the list here, and contains 24 named people (more than Category:Andorians and Category:Bolians, and there has always been a tendency to mention "Professor Smith taught me this well..."). Also USS Equinox personnel has 13 named people, which seems alright to me as a nice, small category in which the members aren't categorized elsewhere.--Tim Thomason 03:17, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Based on the somewhat agreeable responce to variations of these I went ahead and created Category:Klingon Defence Force personnel, but after reevaluating this, I think the simplest way to do this is to simply define it as "military" and go with: Category:Klingon military personnel, Category:Romulan military personnel, Category:Cardassian military personnel and Category:Bajoran military personnel (or Category:Bajoran Militia personnel -- for some reason I can't envision Rom as being part of the "military", but maybe he is?). I also support Category:Starfleet Academy personnel. --Alan del Beccio 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Military personnel Category:Military personnel which would contain all non-Starfleet personnel who were in their respective governments military (like most Romulans and Klingons). Starfleet personnel and maybe the Guls categories could be sub-categories and if and when other types of personnel are made into categories (as suggested above), they can be separated and made sub-categories.--Tim Thomason 08:21, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) * I think this is a better start than the long winded "Specific Military Personnel" selection listed above. --FuturamaGuy 22:17, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Comment: I can't believe someone thought that the whole "Specific Military Personnel" was a good idea.--Tim Thomason 07:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Support. Sounds good. Make it so. --From Andoria with Love 05:08, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) Political regions I was thinking something like Category:Political regions for all political regions, including nations, states, provinces and districts (anything that doesn't fall under Category:Cities or Category:Regions) that can further be subcategorized into those specifically referenced on Earth. --Alan del Beccio 05:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support, although I'm not sure if "political regions" is really the best name for it. Then again, I can't think of anything better, so maybe it is the best name for it. :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support --FuturamaGuy 22:15, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) "Subnational entities " would appear to be more appropriate, subbed with "Earth subnational entites". --Alan del Beccio 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :*Okay, the category was created as Subnational entities. Now, exactly what are we putting into this category? Is there a list? --From Andoria with Love 07:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Suggested categories In-universe categories Category:Starfleet I'd like to add a category for Starfleet subdivisions like Unit XY-75847. Perhaps Category:Starfleet, but that might have the tendency to overlap with too many other categories. Category:Military units might work too. Any other suggestions? -- Harry 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I definitely prefer the second suggestion - "Starfleet" would be too broad as a category title, and the second one would allow us to also list units and groups of other powers (if those exist). I don't have any suggestions regarding the exact title, but it should cover, for example, Star Fleet Battle Group Omega and the Starfleet Fleets. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT) :On the tree suggestion page, I started the Category:Organizations -- it contains Category:Governments and Category:Agencies -- the latter should contain Category:Starfleet if and when it is created. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * It would be a good place to add subcategories Category:Starfleet personnel, and that is with me not knowing if they are subcategorized anywhere else other than "Lists". --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I believe it should either be Category:Military units or something like Category:Fleets. In any case, I support the idea. --From Andoria with Love 12:12, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) * In addition to what I stated above, I support this category to include all Starfleet agencies (as listed here and other SF specific things such as what is listed at Starfleet Fleets and other unfound, yet related topics-- ie, Category:Starfleet personnel. --Alan del Beccio 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) What they do... Occupations * In reviewing many of the terms categorized under Category:Titles, I've noticed that many of those listed are (almost) strictly occupations, rather than mere titles. Examples of this include: Archaeology and anthropology officer, astronaut, bartender, Captain's personal guard, Comfort woman, etc -- versus more traditional (and true) titles, such as King, Ambassador, High Commissioner and the like. --Alan del Beccio 08:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Comment': Under titles I see (or saw) three different types: ##'Military ranks', like Colonel or Lieutenant, now a category thanks to some courageous individuals. ##'Titles', real titles given to someones name, like Administrator, Governor or Jal. ##'Positions', not really given to your name but an "occupation" you occupy with some authority (like Arbiter of Succession, Records officer, Science officer, Third officer, Captain's personal guard) ##'Occupations', like you suggest which includes bartender or barkeep or maybe Chef (although that is also a title) or even astronaut. * I'm not really suggesting these sub-categories, I'm just saying that "occupations" doesn't really cover it either.--Tim Thomason 15:46, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Well I'm out of here again for a few days, so I'm not sure what we can do with this, as you have a point about the divisions of this--and at the same time, I really don't think it is appropriate, as it is currently, to have bartender and comfort woman categorized as "titles"-- in fact, I would almost rather see them not categorized at all. I suggest we browse through wikipedia's category structure for ideas. A significantly toned down version of what might be found in might be a good start. --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) Professions We have some professional categories (Ambassadors, artists, Athletes, Authors, musicians). I would like to propose some new : politicians (ruler, ambassador subcat,...), scientists (from Starfleet and other organizations), engineers (from Starfleet and other organizations), Medical practitioners, merchants, spies. - Philoust123 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) * See Above --Alan del Beccio 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Science category or categories I'd like to propose either a higher level "science" category or the creation of scientific categories such as "biology" and "physics". -- Jim 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) * See Above --Alan del Beccio 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ** "See above"... where? I think this can safely be merged to the subsection below, where Category:Science was brought up again. -- Cid Highwind 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) People Unnamed nonhumans Subcategory for all the "List of"'s that are kept within Category:Nonhumans, much like were created the subcategory Category:Unnamed Humans for Category:Humans. --Alan del Beccio 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) *'Support' -- Renegade54 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. I'm a little late to this discussion, but I'm really starting to not like the title "Nonhuman". It's human-centric where it doesn't need to be, and I'm going to suggest a different title for this below. Also, we already have Category:People, which is a list category for lists of people. This needs to be sorted somehow... -- Cid Highwind 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Science ;Category:Science: Going with the suggested Portal:Science. Subcategories could be the various divisions of science, as well as existing Category:Scientists etc.; member articles could, for example, be the various list articles about sciences, research stations, science awards and so on... Note: The "scientists" category, for whatever reasons, already contains some articles that would much better be placed here. -- Cid Highwind 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) *'Support.' The science-related articles were put in the Category:Scientists for lack of a better place. -- Renegade54 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) *'Support' I saw people moving some of that stuff in the Category:Scientists, so I did that too. Personally, I would rather not put something in a category than put it in one that it doesn't belong in. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': This might lead to some overlap with Category:Academic disciplines, which should be taken care of somehow... -- Cid Highwind 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Technology ;Category:Technology: As above, to parallel a possible Portal:Technology. Besides, desperately needed to collect some existing categories such as various "starships" categories, "probes" (which shouldn't be a sub of starships), "transporter components" and so on. -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Borg technology I'd like to propose a new category called Borg technology, based off my list of Borg technology. As an alternate title, we could use Borg terminology instead (I haven't decided which I like best myself). -- Renegade54 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) :This should be a subcategory of Category:Technology if named "Borg technology", or of Category:Terminology if named "Borg terminology". -- Renegade54 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::No problem with that (as "Borg technology"), if... it is only used for articles that would otherwise be located at "technology" itself (no starships, for example, because those would already be in the "starships" subcategory of technology), and restricted to articles that describe "Borg-only" technology (for example, no Tractor beam). -- Cid Highwind 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) :Take a look at the list. Everything meets that definition, either Borg-only or originally Borg later used by someone else (like transwarp hubs). The reason I had tractor beam in that list is that the Borg had a different, more sophisticated tractor beam than other species, and that's described in the main tractor beam article. That particular version of the tractor beam is Borg-specific, but, obviously, the article isn't. There are a few entries in my list, as well, that I consider more "Borg terminology" than "Borg technology", like Unimatrix or Trimatrix or First (Borg) or Borg Queen. -- Renegade54 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::I did take a look at that list - that's what made me comment in the first place... ;) Assimilation is a process, not technology; Borg Collective is a designation for a group of beings, not technology; Borg Queen is a'' being, not technology... Cortical implant, Cutting beam, Ocular implant, just to name a few of many, are technology, but not restricted to the Borg. There are many articles on that list that shouldn't be categorized as either "Borg technology" or "Borg terminology", because they really aren't. However, as I said, I wouldn't mind having that category for those articles that really are technology '''and' restricted to the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC) :Perhaps there should be a "Category:Borg stuff", with "stuff" being replaced by a more appropriate word, that would encompass all things Borg. -- Renegade54 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::Well, the best title for that would simply be "Borg" (although that title has already been used for something else despite my comments: see Category talk:Borg) - but even then, I'm sure we'd end up with some horrible mess if we started to categorize everything that was also used by the Borg once, but not restricted to them, as "Borg". The Borg aren't that special in the big scheme of things, so we would also need to have "Klingon", "Romulan", and so on. If we did that, we'd end up with a dozen or more categories on something like Tractor beam. I'd still support a "Borg technology" category for Borg-only technology (or, for that matter, a category "Borg X" for every "Borg-only X" that has piled up enough articles here) - but categorizing the way suggested here doesn't sound like a good idea to me. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Individuals Currently, we have categories "Humans" and "Nonhumans", with the latter one being a mix of species subcategories and a list of various individuals of different origin. This is "human-centric", as such doesn't really reflect the in-universe setting, and also makes the categorization scheme more complex than it needs to be. I'm suggesting Category:Individuals, basically be "renaming" the current "Nonhumans" category, and want to move the "Humans" categories to this category, just like subcategories for other species already exist. -- Cid Highwind 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Production POV categories Novel series I'm not familiar enough with the way the novels are laid out, but similar to the TV series category (if we have one), this would be for the "big picture" articles that contain the list of novels. Possibly even subcategories for individual novel series if there are enough of them to justify a new category. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) * Support --Alan del Beccio 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) * Support, though since the TV series only have the "Star Trek" category on them, maybe just make it a more generic "Series" category? - AJ Halliwell 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Media companies * For all publication, movie, television or other media companies that produce or reproduce Star Trek material. This would be something of a 'catch all' category for things that appear (down the category tree) from wikipedias Media companies category. --Alan del Beccio 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :There is already a Category:Production companies - Philoust123 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :: ...which is limited to just production companies. This category suggestion is to include publication companies, companies that make games, television channels that air the series, etc. --Alan del Beccio 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Production Staff Artists ;Category:Production artists Another sub-category of Category:Production staff for such people as artists, whether book covers, comics, or set decoration. -- Sulfur 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :Comment: This might be better suited as its own seperate category if its going to be for books and the like, as those products are seperate from those officially licensed by Paramount and therefore not involving the production staff from the shows or films. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) The other possibility there is to have a couple of "artist" categories, one for books, comics, etc (which are still officially licensed by Paramount), and one for the set decorators, painters, etc. Regardless, we do need one for artists, we have a right stack of them now. -- Sulfur 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Production calendar Change the Template:Calendar day to add the days to Category:Production calendar instead of Category:Production lists. --Bp 08:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) *Definitely support. Makes sense to have an individual category for 366 pages... Should this be a subcategory of "production lists", or some other production category? -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) **Could be a sub-cat of Category:Production lists or maybe Category:Production timeline, or just Category:Star Trek. --Bp 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC) **'Support.' I'm the one who put them in Category:Production lists to begin with, because they are lists of production events on those particular days. A sub-cat of Category:Production lists makes sense, but so does a sub-cat of Category:Production timeline. I'd just as soon limit the total number of articles (or categories) under Category:Star Trek, though, because that seems to be a rather ambiguous category, at least to me. -- Renegade54 10:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Maintenance categories MA Campaigns I think there should be provisionnal categories for specific campaigns : Unnamed people : For example, looking for all the unnamed people on a serie. I presume that a bot can put this campaign category on all the episodes of TNG for example. In that case, when someone is watching a TNG episode, he knows he should look carefully at the unnamed people to see if they are all listed. After adding the unlisted one, he then removes this category. At the end, when this category is empty, the campaign is over and we know for sure, that all this people are listed, because for the moment, we don't know which episodes are ckecked or not. - Philoust123 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :Well, we'd only know that for each episode there's someone who believes that he found all possible "unnamed people" (or whatever it is we're looking for at the moment, and that's not even counting mild vandalism by simply removing these tags unchecked). However, these might be useful tools, but on the other hand, I really don't want to see yet another message template or admin category on an article ("oppose"), and if this proposal goes through, I think we all now well that it won't stop at one or two of those categories. What about restricting this to the episode talk pages, I'd support that? That way, someone who wants to take part in this campaign can find episodes just as easily while there won't be an additional distracting message for someone who actually just wants to read about the episode... -- Cid Highwind 10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Category:Real world POV To put on the "RealWorld" template, as I've seen it pop up on several articles that it shouldn't, and as far as I can tell There's no way to keep track of where it is. - AJ Halliwell 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :We already have Category:Star Trek, a category that was first suggested as Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found), then agreed upon using that name as production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise. The "Realworld" template also was initially suggested as a template for "Meta-Trek" articles, so that template and the existing category should be placed on the same pages - ideally by replacing existing category links with the template first and then adding the category to the template. I oppose creating yet another category just because there's a controversy about what exactly might constitute "Meta-Trek"... -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :Note: The "Star Trek" category already has several sub-categories, so perhaps it should not be added automatically by the template. It's safe to say, however, that any article that is in "Star Trek", or a subcategory of that, should probably have the "Meta Trek"/"Production"/"Realworld" template. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I wasn't involved in that particular political debate- I just want a way to see what pages have the Template on them (such as the PNA articles) because I know of at least two episodes they've been added to, several novels, and some things that should be from an In-universe POV. (IE: If someone put the Realworld template on Cardassia.) I know Cardassia doesn't constitute "Meta-Trek"... - AJ Halliwell 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :And now you're officially a part of that debate... because others think that this template should be added to all novel and episode pages, for example. Congratulations... ;) :On the other hand, I don't think categories are generally a good idea if the rationale for them is "to find out on which pages a template doesn't belong". I think the "What links here" of that template would be a much better tool (that doesn't confuse readers at the same time) in this case. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Memory Alpha portals ;Category:Memory Alpha portals: Maintenance category to be placed on all portal pages via , used to list all existing portal pages. Link to this category would be placed on the main page for navigation purposes. (see also: Forum:Portals). -- Cid Highwind 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support. Would we be creating a new Portal namespace as well? -- Renegade54 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support, I like this idea. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support, bring order to chaos, as the Borg would say. --Jörg 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support, I support the portal idea, so let's make it so. - Enzo Aquarius 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Template categories Not my suggestion, but taken from Category talk:Templates: *Category:Memory Alpha templates (Category:Templates needs to be moved there) *Category:Memory Alpha navigational templates (Category:Navigational templates needs to be moved there) *Category:Memory Alpha maintenance templates *Category:Memory Alpha episode templates (although I personally don't know what this might be...) -- Cid Highwind 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support! (at least the first 3) -- Renegade54 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Display graphics *Category:Memory Alpha images (display graphics)... unless someone can find a better title. For all images of okudagrams and other display graphics, such as: Image:VoyagerAstroLabMilkyWay.jpg, Image:Academy flight trainer.jpg etc. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ** Perhaps if we limited it to text and other graphics that cant be defines? For some reason the Academy fight trainer seems more appropriate in starship. --Alan del Beccio 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) *** Comment: If something is a display graphic of something, like a starship, the image could still be categorized as both... -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Individuals (subcategories) As already started, the "(individuals)" category could be subdivided. Emphasis on "subdivided", I think this should not be an additional category, but replace the "(individuals)" category. Following that approach, I also suggest to name them "(X individuals)" (X being a species name) instead of just "(X'')" to avoid any possible confusion in the future with other image categories. -- Cid Highwind 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) * Support --Alan del Beccio 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Production staff We seem to have a growing number images for the production staff (such as Image:Maggie Schpak.jpg) so I suggest "Category:Memory Alpha images (production staff)" or (Production staff), or something similar. - AJ Halliwell 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Starting point category ;Category:Memory Alpha or Category:Articles I have noticed that this site doesn't have one yet, so I am proposing a category that would be a starting point for locating ''any article. It's subcategories would obviously be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. Adamwankenobi 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) :Maybe I am missing something, but what would the point of having these categories be? Category:Memory Alpha would apply to EVERYTHING on MA, and seems pointless to me, and pretty much so would Category:Articles. As for having a starting point, that is what those lists and stuff on the main page are for. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) You're exactly right. The proposed new category would apply to EVERYTHING, therefore this site would be taking its first step in the right direction of cleaning up its messy categorization system. What troubles me is that the current categorization system has no real starting point. Yeah, you could say the main page serves as this but that's the responsibility of the categories—to point readers in the right direction. If we were to take this action, ONE link on the main page would suffice. The link would then point to the proposed all-encompassing category and everybody would be happy. :) Adamwankenobi 01:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) :Personnally, I would rather see the main page as a jumping point than to see every article get acategory added on (some already have too many). Given that, and that I feel I know understand what these categories would be (although I still do not know the difference between Category:Memory Alpha and Category:Articles), I have to vote oppose. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think you fully understand what I mean. The category wouldn't be applied to every article, it would be applied to TWO CATEGORIES. And those two categories would be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. I tried to make that clear in my initial request. It's just a simple housekeeping maneuver. Adamwankenobi 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) :Still opposing. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) You shouldn't be asking yourself "Why?", but rather, "Why not?". I don't understand your ground for opposing. I can't see what this category would hurt. Adamwankenobi 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) :Read my initial vote, I include multiple "why nots" --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ::comment I've seen wikis with a category "AtoZ" that allows them to control the index, unlike Special:Allpages, which lists every page and doesn't allow you to control it. It also allows you to add sort keys. Maybe that is what the articles category would be here. --Bp 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) :::Well, there already are "starting point categories" for two of the three basic page types we have (1.in-universe articles, 2.PPOV articles, 3.Project pages), and (as I already stated in one of the related discussions) I'm not sure if a single "starting point" even makes sense for the third type. Since we're trying to keep the different page types separate anyway, I don't see the point in tying them together by another top-level category. Why would anyone need a connected chain of categories from, for example, an in-universe article to a policy page? -- Cid Highwind 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ::::I wasn't aware our categorizating system was in need of a clean-up. Nor are these categories really necessary, IMO. Oppose. --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)